re: Dr. Catherine O'Neal :"If you don't choose the vaccine, you're choosing death"

Regarding pregnant women

Follow the money

A big part of the argument against certain treatments (that get people banned from platforms for discussing...) appears to be that “the evidence is low quality” (mind you compared to big dollar pharma trials hyping new biotech for $$$$ vs. an option that is cheap with little profit margin)

Reference my prior posts in this thread for context

Read this recently and immediately thought of the irony it presents (level of evidence argument)

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93430?xid=nl_secondopinion_2021-07-06&eun=g1803593d0r

quote:

---

Is Confirmation Bias Guiding COVID Vaccine Recommendations? — Policy must be based on indisputable evidence
by Robert M. Kaplan, PhD, and Rose McDermott, PhD July 6, 2021

---

quote:

---

Let's examine how the confirmation bias tendency has played out in the evaluation of studies in support of vaccines. For example, within days of a suggestion of increased myocarditis following vaccination among young Israeli men, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, ignored evidence in the CDC's own surveillance systems and leaped to the conclusion that vaccines posed no threat. But now, FDA has added a warning about the risk for myocarditis after vaccination with the mRNA shots, and CDC agreed to update their fact sheet.

NIH Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who by anyone's standards is a model of personal and scientific integrity, published a blog with the title, "Studies Confirm COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Safe, Effective for Pregnant Women." The evidence was based on two studies. One of the studies included only 30 pregnant women and did not measure outcomes in terms of maternal or child health. The small sample size is an issue. Imagine concluding that maternal age is unrelated to trisomy 21 based on 30 women ages 35 to 40. Down syndrome, which occurs in about eight per 1,000 live births for 40-year-old moms, would most likely be overlooked. The second study included just 84 vaccinated women who had given birth. Examinations showed the placentas from these births were comparable to those from a group of women who had not been vaccinated. These two studies, comprising a total of 114 pregnancies, were then generalized to all women and to birth outcomes rather than surrogate measures of immunity or placental pathology.

Evidence used to reassure men may be even weaker. In June, JAMA published a study that was designed to determine whether mRNA vaccines diminish fertility. The investigation included a grand total of 45 young (median age 28) volunteers. Semen was collected pre- and post-vaccination. There was a modest increase in sperm concentration, motility, and semen volume following the vaccine. No data on pregnancies, live births, or neonatal complications were available. MedPage Today reported the results under the heading, "Hopeful Dads Can Relax About COVID Vax: No Link to Infertility." A quote from the senior author diminished the methodological limitations: "...even though the 45 number is small, we're confident that we can generalize this to the rest of the population." He went further to express confidence that the Johnson & Johnson and Novavax vaccines, which were not evaluated in the study, would similarly not affect sperm counts. Urology Times reported, "Study shows COVID-19 vaccines do not affect male fertility" without raising a single question about methodological limitations. CNN, under the headline "Sperm count not harmed by Covid-19 vaccine, study says," quoted several experts who reassured men that the study removes any concern about vaccine effects on fertility. Yet, these small studies exert outsize influence because JAMA publications often get extensive media attention.

---

quote:

---

Now, let's do a thought experiment. Suppose the study showed a decrease in sperm concentration or motility after the vaccine. Would JAMA have accepted the paper? Or would reviewers have said: 1) there were only 45 subjects, 2) it used a convenience sample that is unrepresentative of the U.S. population of men, 3) there was no control group, 4) the outcomes were surrogate markers, not actual measures of reproductive success, and 5) follow-up was limited to 70 days after the second dose. The list goes on. The concern, of course, is that confirmation bias is at work.

JAMA upholds very high methodological standards for papers that challenge the dominant narrative. But for studies that reinforce the prevailing wisdom ... not so much. To be fair, we are not aware of any evidence that vaccines adversely affect fertility. But we need more time and evidence to affirm the vaccines have no effect on birth outcomes. That is why Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and CDC have remained cautious -- CDC says pregnant women can get vaccinated and should discuss any questions with a healthcare provider; NIH also just launched a study to learn more about the vaccine in pregnant women.

---

This theme shows up in the Ivermectin discussion
Cynics claim the data is not good enough (low volume/low quality) not acknowledging the data is corrupted...

For those paying attention
Unknown unknowns, black swans, and turkeys bruh...